Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Deschenes Fence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Goshen applicants seek variance for 8-foot deer fence; board sets July 21 public hearing
Summary
Valerie and Joseph “Jeff” Deschênes asked the Town of Goshen board for variances and an interpretation to install an 8-foot deer fence at 126 Rexford Drive, citing extensive garden damage; the board asked for clearer maps and a walking video and scheduled a public hearing for July 21.
Valerie Deschênes, who said she lives at 126 Rexford Lane in Goshen, told the board the couple has maintained nearly 3 acres for decades and wants an 8-foot deer fence to protect established gardens and trails. "The deer were winning," she said, describing repeated damage and the need for a taller barrier.
The board opened the item as an initial presentation and reviewed the zoning code provisions for front-yard fences. A member read town code language that allows customary agricultural wire or split-rail fencing higher than 4 feet if it does not obstruct visibility; board members said that interpretation might make a front-yard variance unnecessary, leaving side and rear setback waivers as the main issues.
Members pressed the applicants for details: exact fence alignment, whether the proposed line would cross property lines, the fence material and how maintenance would be conducted if trees or hedgerows are on shared boundaries. Deschênes said the material is vinyl-coated wire with black posts intended to be minimally visible and that most maintenance could be performed from their side of the property. She said one immediate neighbor, Russ Hammer, is verbally supportive and that she could seek written confirmation.
Board members raised recurring concerns about permanence: they noted a granted variance runs with the land and asked whether the board could make approval contingent on maintaining a vegetative buffer (a hedgerow) so an 8-foot fence would not become plainly visible to the street if future owners removed screening. Town staff said a condition could be written into the resolution if the applicant agreed.
To evaluate the minimum-variance standard, the board asked the applicants to provide better documentation: clearer photos, maps showing existing contours and trails, and a short walking video that demonstrates current sightlines and access needs. The board emphasized it must see compelling justification for any setback reduction because the ordinance requires the minimum variance necessary.
The board moved, seconded and voted to hold a public hearing on the Deschênes fencing matter on July 21; members asked the applicants to submit the requested materials in advance so staff and the board can review them before the hearing. The motion passed by voice vote.
The board did not reach a decision on merits at the meeting; the next step is the scheduled public hearing and any conditioned variance resolution that may follow.
